This story has been bopping around the blogosphere all day.



I want to make it clear that I haven't found any actual proof about this story but the reason given is that the MSM refuses to cover it... I dunno...

Questions:

Should Hillary Clinton be tapping Sandy Berger for any sort of advice?

If this turns out to be factual how damaging would it be Clinton's Presidential run? (Assuming anyone remembers what Sandy Berger did.)

Should Hillary Clinton be tapping Sandy Berger for any sort of advice?
No, but the triangulators make up a powerful and small number of influential policy advisors within the DNC. Her pickings are slim.

If this turns out to be factual how damaging would it be Clinton's Presidential run?
Hopefully a lot. I wish Democratic voters would realize Clinton is not their liberal candidate. But with the help of our celebrity journalism-focused media, who knows, it may not affect her at all.

Should Hillary Clinton be tapping Sandy Berger for any sort of advice?
Yes, she should. Sandy can provide invaluable advice on how to stash the money from Hsu in her stockings, and how to destroy any receipts.


If this turns out to be factual how damaging would it be Clinton's Presidential run? (Assuming anyone remembers what Sandy Berger did.) Not very. Virtually everybody who actually cares that Sandy Berger stole classified documents wouldn't vote for Hillary as dog catcher. Everybody else is more interested in burnishing the Clinton Camelot mystique either to springboard Hillary into the Oval Office, or as a contrast to the "eeeeeevil BushCo Regime". So, as a practical matter, its unlikely to make any difference. In an ideal world? Reliance upon the foreign policy idiots who made such a mess of things before should disqualify Hillary from any Federal office. It makes as much sense as would Mitt Romney turning to Ken Lay as his economics advisor.

Should Hillary Clinton be tapping Sandy Berger for any sort of advice?

I guess this is one of those loaded questions we talked about earlier? - well, the bar has been set pretty low by Bushco- which is more of a reason to break the cycle instead of continue it. In the grand scheme of things- how can he be worse than, oh, Gonzales or Rove?

If this turns out to be factual how damaging would it be Clinton's Presidential run? (Assuming anyone remembers what Sandy Berger did.)

Once again- outrage overload over the multiple treasons of the Bushco has probably burnt out the whole nation- really, in respects to the eight years we have endured- how in the world could someone be outraged about this?

Best thing to do is to break the Clinton-Bush cycle permanently.

I totally disagree that the first question is loaded. Say what you like about Rove and Gonzales they haven't been convicted of anything. Further, the question as written, isn't even inflammatory. Just replace the names to check:

Should George Bush be tapping Karl Rove for any sort of advice?
or
Should Michael Bloomberg be tapping Al Sharpton for any sort of advice?

Exactly- considering the scooter libby conviction, should the president be listening to the advice of Karl Rove? Of course not- but he did anyway.

If we hadn't just endured 7 years of Bushco- and the only yardstick we had to measure by was Reagan/Bush/Clinton- I would be outraged- but after the last 7 years, well, it just seems like, well, a temptest in a teapot. Barely even worth mentioning and all that.

No, the term "loaded question" does not mean, "a question that CruisingRam is uncomfortable answering". A loaded question is a question which, in order to give a direct answer to it, you'd have no choice but to accept a disputable premise. The classic example is: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

This question is not loaded. It contains no premises that anyone would seriously dispute. The only problem with it from your perspective is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush, and you just can't stand that.

Hmmm, I dislike Hillary just as much, or nearly as much, as I do GW- just look at my response to "preparing for the next presidency"- Hillary, Fred Thompson or Guiliani are my most feared pics for prez-

unlike the Bushbots, I don't give a "pass" to someone just because they have a letter behind thier name that I support.

But when you place the minor wrongdoing of Sandy Berger and place it next to Karl Rove or Scooter Libby- there just isn't a comparison- one was TRULY traitorous- outing spies, who knows what Sandy Berger took and why- but it didn't involve outing spies or betraying national interests to personal interests. No harm, no foul.

Had it been in the context of pre-Nixon, i would have asked for his hanging- but the wrongdoing and corruption of the presidency since JFK has just been to great to really worry about small things.

Because we don't know. Just because we don't know what he took doesn't mean nobody/nothing was harmed.

I agree with you about the Republican's swooning defense of Libby, though. Their fall guy, their patriot, was convicted by his peers and all we have is Bush's commute and the GOP/neocon's lousy double standards to show for it.

However- I think the worst you can say about Sandy is he wanted to destroy documents that made him look bad or some such- not neccesarily putting others in harms way, or blowing a spy operation or passing secrets to iran or some such.

Hillary is just a sucky candidate, all by herself, without the help of Sandy Berger

Turns out this story is getting legs after all!

Ok, let me understand this...there is no factual proof that Libby had anything to do with the outing of a covert spy, not to mention the possibility that the spy wasn't even protected, not to mention the possibility that the spy's husband is accused of outing her, not to mention that the prosecuter used multiple grand juries to come up with only a purjury charge. He deserves to rot in prison the rest of his natural life, you are right.

On to the innocent Sandy Berger. You are right, who knows what he stole from the National Archives and destroyed. We won't know since he destroyed the documents. So since we know that the documents pertain to the 9-11 commission, I can't imagine that anything pertains to national security, or covering some administrations arse. Stealing documents isn't a serious crime at all. You are right in defending him.

There is no evidence that Hillary is tapping Berger for "advice."

In this Fox News story, we learned that Berger was an "unpaid adviser" ... but in what capacity? the article doesn't say. we also learned that Hillary has been "taking advice" ... but how? the article doesn't say. the article goes on to say a whole lot about what people have to say about the unsourced, unverified claims.

News Flash: Some people are saying Clinton is taking "advice" from Berger. Some people are saying that this could hurt Clinton's credibility and electiblity.

Please note that all mention and discussion of the story are accompanied by a rehash of what Berger did. This is an effort to get Berger back into the news in order to harm Democrats, and to play guilt-by-association with Clinton.



Of course, you had to bring it up too. but this begs the question: just how connected is Berger to Clinton right now? Answer: you have no idea.

This story is kind of amusing.

From the Sammon Examiner article:



an advisor, how?



says who? how? "a similar role" ... how?

Sammon has been printing lies and calling it "news" for years. Does anyone believe he is an objective journalist? Here are the titles of his books:

• "At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election"
• "Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House"
• "Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, Media Bias and the Bush Haters"
• "Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media"

Bill Sammon's previous deceits have been well documented by Bill Somerby.

These aren't news stories, they're GOP memos.

I think choosing Sandy is the type of loyalty displayed that has been all to indicative of recent political history. But he is part of the winning machine that is fronted by the Clinton name.

I don't think this will ultimately damage the Clinton campaign at all.

But it is evidence that a Clinton vote is a vote for more establishment politics.

Another reason I would prefer Obama.

Should Hillary Clinton be tapping Sandy Berger for any sort of advice?

I don't have a problem with it to be honest. I didn't agree with a lot of what Sandy Berger did in his tenure with the Clinton Administration, but there's no question he does have quite a bit of experience in the foreign policy and national security field as an advisor. Hillary could do a lot worse I think.



If this turns out to be factual how damaging would it be Clinton's Presidential run? (Assuming anyone remembers what Sandy Berger did.)

Well, if people don't remember I'm sure they'll get reminded. But, it could become an issue, a minor one, but an issue. I don't think it should be and unlike many here on the left who wanted to draw and quarter Scooter Libby for basically doing nothing wrong at all, I have defended Berger's actions by giving him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think Sandy Berger is a traitor or a bad guy at all. I disagree with him on policy and I would hope that that would become the debate. I fear it won't be though, not in this atmosphere of politics.


Aquilla